Monday, 7 December 2015

A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin Grasslands has
been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area. This will be
the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in 1973, that
this piece, approximately 6 acres, will be protected from range cows and
off-roaders.

The fence was proposed at
meetings of the Committee for the Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late
2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected
by wildlife friendly fencing as per recommendations of Montana State
Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See details on
www.dryrotjournal.blogspot.ca Lost Lake blog of Nov 2014.

For more on that story see the link above.

Volunteers returned to the newly fenced area Oct 2015 to
remove the dysfunctional fence installed a few years earlier by Range Branch,
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

That Range Branch fence deserves further comment as it was a non-wildlife friendly
fence installed too close to a spring and seasonal flow to provide any
worthwhile setback or protection from range cows. The Range Branch fence was
constructed in a U shape, open at the North end where it was apparently assumed
that dense brush would prevent cattle access. The assumption was wrong, cattle
pushed into the supposed enclosure and having done so, exited through the wire,
damaging the fence. The fence did not extend into the headwaters area of the spring
which remained open to cattle damage. In order to construct that fence, Range
Branch or designates felled numerous trees in the area and left them where they
fell. That fence and the damage were done on Nature Trust property without
permission or notice to Nature Trust.

Other examples of Range Branch’s work can be found in the
Gilpin and elsewhere in the Boundary. Poorly planned, poorly executed, non-wildlife
friendly fencing and fencing along the edge of riparian zones that are
hazardous to wildlife. See more on that in our Nov 2014 article: http://www.boundaryalliance.org/lostlake.pdf

The following YouTube video shows the new fence construction and the
take down of the older Range Branch dysfunctional fence.

If your device and download speed allow, select up to 1080 high definition video.

It is our hope that this initiative will:

Allow recovery of the Nature Trust Spring and surrounding area.

Demonstrate improved natural values in the absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range
Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the
benefit of anything other than cattle grazing.

Friday, 27 November 2015

The following is a guest article,
Declaration of Support…….produced and signed by 26 scientists. The article is a
response to the B.C. Gov’ts recent request for comments for reactivated
proposals for a South Okanagan Park.

Boundary Alliance made its own separate submission
online and in the format requested by Gov’t. That online process made no
provision for identifying whether the submission came from an individual or
group/organization. Unlike similar processes, e.g. submission of comments re
Water Act changes, comments/submissions are not being published online. This
lack of transparency can hide any public awareness of “stacking” of responses
by so called stakeholders.

While we largely support the following Declaration by
scientists we do have concerns over a “balanced” approach to cattle grazing in
any Park unless that “balanced” approach incorporates an honest assessment of
the public and environmental costs of cattle grazing on public land. The
absence of any honest “costs” assessment to date has resulted in misleading
claims of positive economic values to grazing. See our articles covering this
topic at: www.boundaryalliance.org/ba_008.htm

DECLARATION of SUPPORT for NEGOTIATIONS LEADING to a NEW FRAMEWORK for PROTECTING the SOUTH OKANAGAN LOWER SIMILKAMEEN

We the undersigned, as members of BC's scientific community, join with Parks Canada, the Province of BC, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, and a majority of local residents in supporting enhanced protection for the ecosystems of the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen. We encourage the government of British Columbia. Parks Canada and the Okanagan Nation Alliance to initiate formal negotiations to finalize boundaries, relationships, and commitments for the creation of a National Park Reserve (NPR) and for the long term protection and management of this remarkable area....

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

A guest piece this time from John & Mary
Theberge,biologist’s from Oliver
B.C.

John & Mary’s recent book, The Ptarmigans Dilemma expands on
grasslands issues in North America. We recommend the book and the opinions
contained in their letter below that first appeared in the Oliver Chronicle
September 11 2015. That book and Wolf
Country: Eleven Years Tracking the Algonquin Wolves are available at
amazon.ca

National Park – Reasons for Concern - The Position of 2 of the
Proposal’s Initiators

John and Mary Theberge

Oliver.

We are 2 of 4 biologists who initiated the South
Okanagan national park proposal back in 2002.

During the public
feasibility study, we put in years of effort to inform the public about its
high priority, ecological rationale, including staging a 2-day public science
forum to explain the meaning and values of a national park in this area.

But a problem arose.The BC government pushed Parks Canada into
the untenable position of abandoning its foremost principle of maintaining
ecological integrity.With cattle
grazing, the lands before and after national park establishment would look and
feel very little different.

National parks are
meant to preserve and protect nature in as unimpeded a way as possible, to be
places where we stand back, for ethical and moral reasons, and let nature have
its way.

pic from wildernesscommittee.org/gwen barlee

Livestock grazing,
along with commercial logging and mining are prohibited, by Act, Policy and
Regulations.While any legal or
procedural changes to accommodate livestock grazing in a South Okanagan
national park undoubtedly would be restricted to this particular park, a dangerous
precedent would be set.History has
shown that once you entrench rights in any park, national or provincial, the
legal prospects of removing them are in doubt.

We have already made far more concessions to outside
commercial interests than has the U.S. National Park system.

For decades we have
championed national parks.As a
university teacher, John has helped train many of the Agency’s senior employees in
ecological park management, and chaired a national task force for the federal
Minister of the Environment on finding ways to complete the national park
system. The minister wanted to be able to make national parks without being
held to ransom by the provinces, as had happened so often before.Here, it has happened again.

As ecologists, we recognize that livestock
grazing, even managed as well as possible, is invariably extremely destructive
in the dry southern interior.These
lands never supported bison, which are roughly ecological equivalents to
cattle, and so are not adapted to the presence of a 1,200 pound grazing and
trampling herbivore.Delicate soils that
depend on cryptobiotic crusts for nitrogen, sensitive riparian habitats, and
the ubiquitous presence of seed sources of invasive plants, all make livestock
grazing and ecological integrity totally contradictory.

Parks Canada’s statement in 2011 that they would manage “continued livestock grazing in the park concept area
in a manner consistent with ecological objectives and park values” is scientifically absurd.

Now, however, the
game has changed with the province’s
recent press release of a proposed jurisdictional split into national park and
provincial park/conservancy lands, and its call for public comment by Oct.
12.Taking a big chunk out of the
national park proposal, BC would likely continue to despoil the lands it
manages, but it may withdraw the offending caveat on provincial crown lands it
hands over to Parks Canada.A real
national park, not a bastardized one, could happen.Similar to Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan,
it would accumulate gradually, probably over decades, assembled only as
ranchers willingly decide to sell.But
no land included in a national park would remain cattle pasture.The Act, Policy and Regulations, and the
whole ideal of national parks, would stay intact.

Unhappily, we do
not know if that is in the cards.Far
too little information was provided in the province’s press release.If a real national park without grazing is in
the offing, we support it.If not, we
continue our objections and hope that people concerned with protecting and
restoring the wild beauty of an intact ecosystem, will object too.

With the current
ambiguity, and especially after the years of unresolved debate over appropriate
land uses, this request for public comment is almost insulting.Ideally, BC together with First Nations,
should make clear what land uses they foresee, and extend the period of public
comment.But related to a national park,
at a minimum, Parks Canada should exploit the opportunity, right now, to
determine if the province has backed away from the livestock grazing ransom,
and issue a press release reassuring Canadians that it will not entertain
commercial ranching in any lands that may become a national park.

While there are multiple sources of waste contamination our submission
focuses on an area that receives little attention as per the following:

This writer approaches this process with great skepticism
informed by 40 years of farming and 30 years as an active environmentalist
(particularly in stream protection) in the Fraser Valley and here in the
Boundary area for the last 20 years. Having been a participant in numerous
exercises promoted by Government to address myriad environmental concerns, one
constant has been Government reluctance to do what is necessary to protect the
environment.

Twenty five years ago I wrote a report for the Langley
Township Council’s Environment Committee on Water Quality and Preservation of
Natural Resources. That report led to an Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study
by UBC. Both reports documented farm and other waste problems affecting streams
and large aquifers in the Fraser Valley. There was nothing new in this
information as the various sources of degradation had been known for years.
Despite numerous government and producer initiatives over the years these same
problems still persist and nitrate and other potentially harmful toxins have
increasingly created dead streams and ever increasingly tainted aquifers.

This AWCR process has been going on for years, frightened it
appears, to move with any deliberate speed due to perceived agriculture
industry resistance and has indicated that any (presumably weak) changes will
be implemented over some extended timeline.

This writer farmed as a (fairly large) hobby farmer for 40
years and in doing so had an inside perspective on industry concerns and
industry contributions to environmental problems. For those who perhaps regard
“hobby farming” as not real farming, I would point to the B C Cattle industry
which is the target of our upcoming criticisms, and point out that the recent
government Ranching Task Force pointed out that most ranches in BC have outside
work to support their hobby.

Since 2006 Boundary Alliance has documented damage and
pollution created by ranching operators in the Boundary area. The primary focus
has been on damage to public lands, so called range land made available to
ranching operators at an absurd rental. Other examples of damage on private
land exist andlinks are provided below.

Earlier input into the AWCR process indicates a substantial
number of contributors want to preserve the status quo and resist “owning”
their contribution to the problem or even acknowledging the problem. One
response seemed to encapsulate this mindset by saying “the samples of the Coldstream & Osoyoos Aquifer (given in an AWCR
update/review ) are not representative of watercourses and aquifers throughout
BC and are therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that broad based regulatory
changes are required”.
While the AWCR could have supplied a multitude of other documented problems, it
was not the purpose of that report to provide that long list. The problems of
Coldstream and Osoyoos aquifer are indeed representative of BC aquifers and
streams and in fact there are far more problems than government has so far
seenfit to acknowledge.

The latest AWCR update/review referred to Best Management
Practices on Crown Land in Community Watersheds.In our linked reports we note in detail that
MFLNRO has promoted the notion that some higher level of care, (guidelines only
and unenforceable) applies to Community Watersheds. The Forest Practices Board
and the organization representing logging on private land have both stated that
there is no justification or worthwhile rationale for distinguishing between
officially designated “Community Watersheds” and the many undesignated
watersheds on which many are dependent. The Ministry of Environment needs to
require all watersheds get protection and not follow the artificial distinction
that Ministry of Forests… has promoted.
The notion that Best Management Practices will effectively address any range
use problems is only possible if one ignores all earlier criticisms of range
practices by Forest Practices Board, FREP and other observers who have noted
that Range Branch and rancher oversight is insufficient to protect public
resources. There are compelling reasons, including economics and attitudes that
that will remain so.

The AWCR update/review of July 2015, footnoted (8) on
Section 10, page 9 that “Management Plans
for grazing leases do not consider water quality and that dispersed grazing for
low intensity well distributed livestock on grazing leases generally poses a
low environmental risk to water quality”.Our articles and links that follow show this claim to be utterly
unjustified.

The following reports document damage and pollution,
primarily by range cows, and demonstrate that the levels of contamination are
directly related to the presence or absence of range cows. The reports also
show that the level of contribution of wildlife to E.coli contamination of
streams is not significant, contrary to claims by Range Branch and ranchers.

Links for our reports:

The Problem with
Range Cattle, a report sent to Ministry of Forests…, Ministry of
Agriculture, Min of Environment April 2010. Ministry of Environment never
replied to this report. Min of Forests indicated they were working on changes.
We have never seen them. The issue of contaminated water begins on page 10 of
that report, however the whole report refers to contributory factors.www.boundaryalliance.org/rangecattle
problem.org

Patterns of E.coli
Contamination in Public Land Streams related to the presence of Range Cattle.
2013 This study is ongoing. Results for 2014 and 2015 have not yet been
published but so far confirm the earlier results.www.boundaryalliance.org/e.coli_report2013.pdf

Sunday, 12 July 2015

A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin
Grasslands has been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area.
This will be the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in
1973, that this piece will be protected from range cows and off-roaders.

The fence was proposed at meetings of the Committee for the
Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late 2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected
by wildlife friendly fencing. As per recommendations of Montana State Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See link to Montana State fencing
guidelines on dryrotjournal blog: Lost Lake..... Nov 2014.

newly fenced area outlined. lost lake shows nearby to NW
click on pics to enlarge

Barry Brandow and Al Grant of www.boundaryalliance.orginitiated, led and financed materials for the
project and substantially completed the work with occasional help from other
volunteers and some hours contributed by Nature Trust’s Nick Burdock and
helpers. The fence represents a contribution by volunteers of $9,300.00 to
$10,700 value (based on contactor prices of $14,000 to $ 16,000 per km.)

The original fence proposed would have expanded the area of
a dis-functional fence installed by Range Branch several years ago. At the
request of Nature Trust the area was expanded and ground conditions dictated a
further expansion, so that the protected area is now 70% larger than originally
proposed. It was originally intended that the fence be in place before arrival
of range-cows in May. We were unable to complete the enlarged area on that
schedule so some cow damage re-occurred in 2015 before completion of the
exclosure.

We expect that exclusion of range cows and off-roaders will
result in a significant improvement in the natural attributes of the area in
future years.The range-cattle are supposedly in the area from May 7 to
June 15th each year but the reality is that range-cows have often
frequented the area from May through Oct/Nov with significant damage to
riparian zones and undue pressure on forage. See dryrotjournal blogs: Lost Lake .... Nov 2014 and Mike Pearson....June 2015 for biologist Mike Pearsons' report on this site and others in the Gilpin.

Prior to this initiative various public funds have been
expended by Range Branch in the Gilpin grazing tenure, usually poorly planned,
poorly constructed, non wildlife friendly and frequently dysfunctional.
Examples abound outside the Gilpin area as well.

It is sad irony to this writer that he volunteered time ,
equipment and expense to this project when the rational solution to degraded
grasslands, contaminated streams and absurd public costs, would be removal of
the cow from public lands. See dryrotjournal blog articles: Cattle Impacts Global & Local
Nov 2014 and Cattle as an Invasive Species Dec 2014.

To illustrate the economic and ecological absurdity of
cattle grazing on public lands using this small local example, this pasture on
the Mehmel grazing tenure collects grazing rents of approx. $400 to $500 P.A.
The extended version of this article which will be published at www.boundaryalliancer.org will have further comment on the inadequacies and unenforceable conditions in the Mehmel
Range Use Plan.

The “cost” to protect a small portion of Nature Trust’s lot,
amounted to “value” of $9,300 to $10,700. Various other public and private
costs in the same pasture have likely exceeded this amount while the majority of the
Nature Trust and public land portions remain mostly unprotected from
range-cattle damage and off-roading.

While it is our hope that this initiative will:

·Allow recovery of the Nature Trust spring and
surrounding area

·Demonstrate improved natural values in the
absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

·Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face
of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range
Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the
benefit af anything other than cattle grazing.

More detail, location maps of NT property, expanded comment
and more pics to come in the website expanded version) at: www.boundaryalliance.org

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio visits the Boundary

April 2015, fisheries and habitat biologist Mike Pearson visited the Grand Forks and Gilpin areas to assess various streams and wetlands.Mike and his company, Pearson Ecological Inc, work primarily in the Fraser Valley on restoration/conservation work and Mike's concerns over habitat damage and endangered species have received frequent attention in the press and in extended artricles by environment reporter Larry Pynn in the Vancouver Sun.Thanks to the efforts of Barry and Midge Brandow, Mike visited the various sites and was speaker at a public meeting in Grand Forks April 10 2015. (See April 1 2015 post)The writer was pleased to sponsor the meeting on behalf of www.boundaryalliance.org and introduce Mike.Mike's Habitat Assessment Report report is self-explanatory as to causes of problems and potential solutions.We note that since his report was written, "The Spring on Nature Trust Property, Gilpin"has been fenced by volunteers who also funded the project.Barry Brandow and this writer (Al Grant) primarily constructed the new 'wildlife friendly fence' to replace a smaller poorly constructed and non functional fence installed by Range Branch a few years ago. We received some help with the work from Nature Trust and several other volunteers. Our thanks to all.The Nature Trust property in the Gilpin was the first Nature Trust acquisition in BC in 1973 and for the first time in 42 years a small section will now be protected from range-cows and off-roaders. The remainder of this plot and several others in the Gilpin remain unprotected.We expect that this new fenced area of about 6 acres will provide a model for wildlife friendly fencing and may prompt Range Branch to utilize similar fencing on future projects, something they have been reluctant to do.

For this writer, the issues covered by Mike are some of many longstanding issues that have not been remedied by Range Branch or other various Ministries over the years and we do not expect that these issues will be addressed in any meaningful way by the Kettle River Watershed Management Planning Process. More to come in future articles about the KRWMP and it's shortcomings and potential threats.See Mike Pearson's full report; here

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Late summer 2014, I visited a section of Eholt creek with Barry
Brandow of Grand Forks. The area of concern is a farm property a few kilometers
east of Greenwood where Eholt Creek meanders through the property for more than
a kilometer.

Because of a lack of riparian fencing various farm animals
access the creek with resultant damage to the stream, stream banks and water
quality. A couple of Youtube videos illustrate the problem and the damage.

﻿﻿﻿
Barry Brandow at Eholt Creek

talks about Riparian Management. 2.15 min

check your youtube settings to get best quality of 720p

﻿

﻿﻿

﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Eholt Creek Damage: Al Grant. 2.30 min

check your youtube settings to get best quality of 1080p

For this writer, the visit brought on a sense of déjà vu as
the location was similar in many ways to properties in the Fraser Valley where
the writer was extensively involved in stream protection initiatives and work
more than 20 years ago.

Then as now, protection of streams and other public
resources is largely dependent on the complaints and noise created by a
concerned public. Then as now, various levels of Government have failed to
effectively address and prevent damage and through various permit granting
functions are frequently continuing to contribute to the damage.

The Kettle River Watershed Management Plan that has been
underway for four or more years appears to offer no effective solutions for
stopping such damage.

Quotes

"the human understanding once it has adopted an opinion.....draws all things else to support and agree with it"

"and although there be a greater weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate".Sir Francis Bacon, about 400 years ago

Today psychologists call it "confirmation bias".Knowing its universal reach is to guard against it.

"facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"

Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays

"it is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding"Upton Sinclair

"one of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen" Aldo Leopold

"experts are often as imprisoned by their beliefs as anyone else"Bob Wiley The Mud Report